A Tale of Two Eras

[Synthaholic]

It's the Right that are the Lockstep Party, not the Left.

Oh, I'm sorry, that response was WRONG. Too bad, but thanks for playing and here are some lovely parting gifts.

Really?

How many Republicans voted for the Stimulus?

How many Republicans voted for Obamacare?

How many Republicans voted to authorize force against Iraq?


Take your retard act elsewhere.

 

[gipper]

It's the responsibility of the United States to ensure the reign of an unelected dictator in a foreign, sovereign country?

Where is that in the Constitution?

You missed my point. The point is Jimma refused to support the Shah BECAUSE the Shah was committing human rights violations against his own people. The result was the Shah was replaced by a much more radical leader who committed much greater human rights violations against his own people. Any fool who bothered to research the beliefs of Khomeini beforehand, would have to conclude he would be much worse than the Shah.

So, in conclusion, Jimma screwed up. This screw up lead to Iran reviving radical Islam and promoting Islamic terrorism worldwide. Not a good track record. Agreed?

The unforeseen consequences of the actions of leftist politicians (only unforeseen by them), are usually most negative.

How is it the responsibility of a U.S. president to ensure the continued dictatorship of a non-elected strongman?

I would pose this same exact question to the wingnuts and know-nothings who blame Obama for Mubarek's ouster.

You continue to miss my point. Jimma fails to support the Shah because he was so nasty....then comes in Khomeini who is much nastier. Do you understand that Jimma's foolish foreign policy resulted in failure?

If you are trying to say that Jimma should have followed a non-interventionist foreign policy, then we agree. America should not intervene, but sadly that cat is out of the bag. America has followed an interventionist foreign policy for a long long time and with mostly unfavorable results.

We are watching another interventionist train wreck right now in Syria...with another dingbat POTUS.

 

[Synthaholic]

You missed my point. The point is Jimma refused to support the Shah BECAUSE the Shah was committing human rights violations against his own people. The result was the Shah was replaced by a much more radical leader who committed much greater human rights violations against his own people. Any fool who bothered to research the beliefs of Khomeini beforehand, would have to conclude he would be much worse than the Shah.

So, in conclusion, Jimma screwed up. This screw up lead to Iran reviving radical Islam and promoting Islamic terrorism worldwide. Not a good track record. Agreed?

The unforeseen consequences of the actions of leftist politicians (only unforeseen by them), are usually most negative.

How is it the responsibility of a U.S. president to ensure the continued dictatorship of a non-elected strongman?

I would pose this same exact question to the wingnuts and know-nothings who blame Obama for Mubarek's ouster.

You continue to miss my point. Jimma fails to support the Shah because he was so nasty....then comes in Khomeini who is much nastier. Do you understand that Jimma's foolish foreign policy resulted in failure?

If you are trying to say that Jimma should have followed a non-interventionist foreign policy, then we agree. America should not intervene, but sadly that cat is out of the bag. America has followed an interventionist foreign policy for a long long time and with mostly unfavorable results.

We are watching another interventionist train wreck right now in Syria...with another dingbat POTUS.

So, your logic is that since America had followed an interventionist foreign policy for a long long time and with mostly unfavorable results, Carter should have continued along that failed track?

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results"

 

[gipper]

How is it the responsibility of a U.S. president to ensure the continued dictatorship of a non-elected strongman?

I would pose this same exact question to the wingnuts and know-nothings who blame Obama for Mubarek's ouster.

You continue to miss my point. Jimma fails to support the Shah because he was so nasty....then comes in Khomeini who is much nastier. Do you understand that Jimma's foolish foreign policy resulted in failure?

If you are trying to say that Jimma should have followed a non-interventionist foreign policy, then we agree. America should not intervene, but sadly that cat is out of the bag. America has followed an interventionist foreign policy for a long long time and with mostly unfavorable results.

We are watching another interventionist train wreck right now in Syria...with another dingbat POTUS.

So, your logic is that since America had followed an interventionist foreign policy for a long long time and with mostly unfavorable results, Carter should have continued along that failed track?

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results"

Do you think Jimma followed a non-interventionist policy in Iran? If so, you are wrong. America has been involved in Iran's politics for a long time and Jimma did not change that. He just chose the wrong horse and got burned. And that is my point. Jimma, like most of our presidents, are not that smart. They should follow a non-interventionist policy so as to avoid this continual failure.

 

[Synthaholic]

You continue to miss my point. Jimma fails to support the Shah because he was so nasty....then comes in Khomeini who is much nastier. Do you understand that Jimma's foolish foreign policy resulted in failure?

If you are trying to say that Jimma should have followed a non-interventionist foreign policy, then we agree. America should not intervene, but sadly that cat is out of the bag. America has followed an interventionist foreign policy for a long long time and with mostly unfavorable results.

We are watching another interventionist train wreck right now in Syria...with another dingbat POTUS.

So, your logic is that since America had followed an interventionist foreign policy for a long long time and with mostly unfavorable results, Carter should have continued along that failed track?

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results"

Do you think Jimma followed a non-interventionist policy in Iran? If so, you are wrong. America has been involved in Iran's politics for a long time and Jimma did not change that. He just chose the wrong horse and got burned. And that is my point. Jimma, like most of our presidents, are not that smart. They should follow a non-interventionist policy so as to avoid this continual failure.

Yes! By very definition: he refused to intervene to ensure the continued rule of an unelected dictator, the Shaw of Iran.

Much like Pres. Obama refused to intervene to ensure the continued rule of another unelected dictator, Hosni Mubarek.

 

[Unkotare]

It's the Right that are the Lockstep Party, not the Left.

Oh, I'm sorry, that response was WRONG. Too bad, but thanks for playing and here are some lovely parting gifts.

Really?

How many Republicans voted for the Stimulus?

How many Republicans voted for Obamacare?

How many Republicans voted to authorize force against Iraq?


Take your retard act elsewhere.

Not supporting democrat policy positions is "lockstep"???

Typical liberal attitude: not thinking and acting like a liberal means A, B, or C.

Talk about lockstep...

 

[Synthaholic]

Oh, I'm sorry, that response was WRONG. Too bad, but thanks for playing and here are some lovely parting gifts.

Really?

How many Republicans voted for the Stimulus?

How many Republicans voted for Obamacare?

How many Republicans voted to authorize force against Iraq?


Take your retard act elsewhere.

Not supporting democrat policy positions is "lockstep"???

Typical liberal attitude: not thinking and acting like a liberal means A, B, or C.

Talk about lockstep...

When it is things that were routinely agreed upon under Republican presidents? Stimulus was a Republican idea under Bush, when Lyin' Ryan and the rest of them voted for it without a peep. Even got up and made speeches on the House floor in favor of it.

Yes - that is a Party that is lockstep together to not cooperate with Obama on anything.

 

[gipper]

So, your logic is that since America had followed an interventionist foreign policy for a long long time and with mostly unfavorable results, Carter should have continued along that failed track?

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results"

Do you think Jimma followed a non-interventionist policy in Iran? If so, you are wrong. America has been involved in Iran's politics for a long time and Jimma did not change that. He just chose the wrong horse and got burned. And that is my point. Jimma, like most of our presidents, are not that smart. They should follow a non-interventionist policy so as to avoid this continual failure.

Yes! By very definition: he refused to intervene to ensure the continued rule of an unelected dictator, the Shaw of Iran.

Much like Pres. Obama refused to intervene to ensure the continued rule of another unelected dictator, Hosni Mubarek.

No. It is not like BO's handling of Mubarak. BO intervened in Egypt by siding with the revolution. Jimma did much the same in Iran. These actions ARE NOT examples of non-intervention.

(Reuters) - If Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak is toppled, Israel will lose one of its very few friends in a hostile neighborhood and President Barack Obama will bear a large share of the blame, Israeli pundits said on Monday.

Political commentators expressed shock at how the United States as well as its major European allies appeared to be ready to dump a staunch strategic ally of three decades, simply to conform to the current ideology of political correctness.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told ministers of the Jewish state to make no comment on the political cliffhanger in Cairo, to avoid inflaming an already explosive situation. But Israel's President Shimon Peres is not a minister.

"We always have had and still have great respect for President Mubarak," he said on Monday. He then switched to the past tense. "I don't say everything that he did was right, but he did one thing which all of us are thankful to him for: he kept the peace in the Middle East."

Newspaper columnists were far more blunt.

One comment by Aviad Pohoryles in the daily Maariv was entitled "A Bullet in the Back from Uncle Sam." It accused Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of pursuing a naive, smug, and insular diplomacy heedless of the risks.

Who is advising them, he asked, "to fuel the mob raging in the streets of Egypt and to demand the head of the person who five minutes ago was the bold ally of the president ... an almost lone voice of sanity in a Middle East?"

"The politically correct diplomacy of American presidents throughout the generations ... is painfully naive."

Obama on Sunday called for an "orderly transition" to democracy in Egypt, stopping short of calling on Mubarak to step down, but signaling that his days may be numbered. Israel shocked by Obama's betrayal of Mubarak | Reuters

 

[Unkotare]

Really?

How many Republicans voted for the Stimulus?

How many Republicans voted for Obamacare?

How many Republicans voted to authorize force against Iraq?


Take your retard act elsewhere.

Not supporting democrat policy positions is "lockstep"???

Typical liberal attitude: not thinking and acting like a liberal means A, B, or C.

Talk about lockstep...

When it is things that were routinely agreed upon under Republican presidents? Stimulus was a Republican idea under Bush, when Lyin' Ryan and the rest of them voted for it without a peep. Even got up and made speeches on the House floor in favor of it.

Yes - that is a Party that is lockstep together to not cooperate with Obama on anything.

I don't think you understand what "lockstep" means. I don't think you want to see anything outside your lefty blinders.

 

[Synthaholic]

Not supporting democrat policy positions is "lockstep"???

Typical liberal attitude: not thinking and acting like a liberal means A, B, or C.

Talk about lockstep...

When it is things that were routinely agreed upon under Republican presidents? Stimulus was a Republican idea under Bush, when Lyin' Ryan and the rest of them voted for it without a peep. Even got up and made speeches on the House floor in favor of it.

Yes - that is a Party that is lockstep together to not cooperate with Obama on anything.

I don't think you understand what "lockstep" means. I don't think you want to see anything outside your lefty blinders.

It means doing things in concert.

 

[Unkotare]

Yet Gallup polls show Republicans much more likely to criticize their own party than democrats.



Check your concert tickets again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

When it is things that were routinely agreed upon under Republican presidents? Stimulus was a Republican idea under Bush, when Lyin' Ryan and the rest of them voted for it without a peep. Even got up and made speeches on the House floor in favor of it.

Yes - that is a Party that is lockstep together to not cooperate with Obama on anything.

I don't think you understand what "lockstep" means. I don't think you want to see anything outside your lefty blinders.

It means doing things in concert.

Hey....look what turned up today:

"Jimmy Carter wrote the playbook on what not to do with his shameful meddling in Iran and the world; the Iranians in particular are still paying for it."
Agony Lies Ahead as Obama Abdicates as Commander-in-Chief - The New York Sun

 

[Synthaholic]

I don't think you understand what "lockstep" means. I don't think you want to see anything outside your lefty blinders.

It means doing things in concert.

Hey....look what turned up today:

"Jimmy Carter wrote the playbook on what not to do with his shameful meddling in Iran and the world; the Iranians in particular are still paying for it."
Agony Lies Ahead as Obama Abdicates as Commander-in-Chief - The New York Sun

Cockroaches turn up too, if you go looking for them in filth.


ETA: I've posted more evidence in that "Reagan helped Saddam gas Iranians" thread.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It means doing things in concert.

Hey....look what turned up today:

"Jimmy Carter wrote the playbook on what not to do with his shameful meddling in Iran and the world; the Iranians in particular are still paying for it."
Agony Lies Ahead as Obama Abdicates as Commander-in-Chief - The New York Sun

Cockroaches turn up too, if you go looking for them in filth.


ETA: I've posted more evidence in that "Reagan helped Saddam gas Iranians" thread.

Speaking of 'Cockroaches,'...
Seems everybody but you is aware of Jimmy Carter installing the Ayatollah Khomeini, and being the provenance of terrorism today.

 

[konradv]

Seems everybody but you is aware of Jimmy Carter installing the Ayatollah Khomeini, and being the provenance of terrorism today.

Then wouldn't Bush be responsible for extending that branch of terrorism to Iraq? If you're going to give us a history lesson, don't leave out parts just because they don't fit your bias. That would make your thesis propaganda, NOT history.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Seems everybody but you is aware of Jimmy Carter installing the Ayatollah Khomeini, and being the provenance of terrorism today.

Then wouldn't Bush be responsible for extending that branch of terrorism to Iraq? If you're going to give us a history lesson, don't leave out parts just because they don't fit your bias. That would make your thesis propaganda, NOT history.

I make my argument in English.

Here's your lesson:

then
T͟Hen/Submit
adverb
1.
at that time; at the time in question.
"I was living in Cairo then"
synonyms: at that time, in those days; More
2.
after that; next; afterward.
"she won the first and then the second game"
synonyms: next, after that, afterward/afterwards, subsequently, later More



Based on that definition, your post....and, traditional with your posts, ....makes no sense.



Further....there is no bias in stating the fact: Jimmy Carter is responsible for the the major part of today's terrorism via the installation of the homicidal maniac, the Ayatollah Khomeini.

 

[Synthaholic]

Hey....look what turned up today:

"Jimmy Carter wrote the playbook on what not to do with his shameful meddling in Iran and the world; the Iranians in particular are still paying for it."
Agony Lies Ahead as Obama Abdicates as Commander-in-Chief - The New York Sun

Cockroaches turn up too, if you go looking for them in filth.


ETA: I've posted more evidence in that "Reagan helped Saddam gas Iranians" thread.

Speaking of 'Cockroaches,'...
Seems everybody but you is aware of Jimmy Carter installing the Ayatollah Khomeini, and being the provenance of terrorism today.

Please describe how Carter installed Khomeini, using the actual definition, since you are so fond of them:

Definition of INSTALL

1
a : to place in an office or dignity by seating in a stall or official seat
b : to induct into an office, rank, or order <installed the new president>

2
: to establish in an indicated place, condition, or status <installing herself in front of the fireplace>

3
: to set up for use or service <had an exhaust fan installed in the kitchen> <install software>
— in·stall·er noun

Examples of INSTALL

1. New locks were installed on all the doors.
2. We thought about installing a new phone system.
3. The computer comes with the software already installed.
4. The software installs easily on your hard drive.
5. The college recently installed its first woman president.
6. They were temporarily installed in the guest bedroom.

 

[konradv]

Seems everybody but you is aware of Jimmy Carter installing the Ayatollah Khomeini, and being the provenance of terrorism today.

Then wouldn't Bush be responsible for extending that branch of terrorism to Iraq? If you're going to give us a history lesson, don't leave out parts just because they don't fit your bias. That would make your thesis propaganda, NOT history.

I make my argument in English.

Here's your lesson:

then
T&#863;Hen/Submit
adverb
1.
at that time; at the time in question.
"I was living in Cairo then"
synonyms: at that time, in those days; More
2.
after that; next; afterward.
"she won the first and then the second game"
synonyms: next, after that, afterward/afterwards, subsequently, later More

Based on that definition, your post....and, traditional with your posts, ....makes no sense.

Further....there is no bias in stating the fact: Jimmy Carter is responsible for the the major part of today's terrorism via the installation of the homicidal maniac, the Ayatollah Khomeini.

That's merely a dodge to cover up how you ignored Bush's hand in spreading the Iranian Revolution to Iraq. Consult your dictionary all you like, it doesn't change facts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Cockroaches turn up too, if you go looking for them in filth.


ETA: I've posted more evidence in that "Reagan helped Saddam gas Iranians" thread.

Speaking of 'Cockroaches,'...
Seems everybody but you is aware of Jimmy Carter installing the Ayatollah Khomeini, and being the provenance of terrorism today.

Please describe how Carter installed Khomeini, using the actual definition, since you are so fond of them:

Definition of INSTALL

1
a : to place in an office or dignity by seating in a stall or official seat
b : to induct into an office, rank, or order <installed the new president>

2
: to establish in an indicated place, condition, or status <installing herself in front of the fireplace>

3
: to set up for use or service <had an exhaust fan installed in the kitchen> <install software>
— in·stall·er noun

Examples of INSTALL

1. New locks were installed on all the doors.
2. We thought about installing a new phone system.
3. The computer comes with the software already installed.
4. The software installs easily on your hard drive.
5. The college recently installed its first woman president.
6. They were temporarily installed in the guest bedroom.

Nothing identifies the "low information voter" so well as the refusal to connect the dots, if said connection would indict his favorite Democrat.

An example is the clamor over the 'death panels' instituted by the Obama healthcare debate. It was fervently denied all during the debate....
...yet, as usual, the Right was telling the truth, the low information voter denying same.
Then, Stephen Rattner, Obama adviser, admitted it....and ....silence from the Left.


Here one can see the same phenomenon.
Democrat Carter made it possible for the Ayatollah Khomeini to assume control....yet a dunce....you.....refuse to accept same.




"After Carter’s election, Ebrahim Yazdi, one of the Ayatollah Khomeini’s supporters urged him to “begin to think of the ‘new possibilities’ that the expected rift between Tehran and Washington might offer.” Yazdi, an Iranian-born American citizen, wrote to him in Iraq that “the shah’s friends in Washington are out. … It is time to act.” Circumstances dictated that “having picked Khomeini to overthrow the shah, Carter and the French had to get him out of Iraq, clothe him with respectability, and set him up in Paris,” wrote Amir Taheri in “Nest of Spies.”

CIA memoranda regarding Khomeini seem to have either been deliberately ignored by the Carter administration or lost in the great governmental paperwork shuffle. One memo flatly stated, “Khomeini is determined to overthrow the shah and is unlikely to accept compromise. … He has cooperated in the past with Islamic terrorist groups.”

Carter viewed Khomeini as a religious holy man in a grass-roots revolution rather than the founding father of modern terrorism. U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young said, “Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint.” Iran Ambassador William Sullivan, said, “Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure.” Adviser James Bill proclaimed in a Newsweek interview in 1979 that Khomeini was not a mad mujahid, but a man of “impeccable integrity and honesty.”

Lubrani later told me Carter was to blame, to some extent, for the current state of affairs in Iran.


Liberal Democrat Jimmy Carter apparently believes evil really does not exist. Terrorist organizations are simply human rights movements; people are basically good; and America should embrace the perpetrators while castigating the victims.


Jimmy Carter is among the number clamoring to change the worldview of terrorists from mass murderers of the innocent to “insurgents” or “liberation movements.” He is quick to indict the U.S. at every opportunity and to champion the downtrodden suicide bombers as “martyrs.”"
Welcome back Carter?



So, yes....Jimmy Carter installed the Ayatollah

And, yes, he is therefore responsible for the bulk of the terrorism in the world today.

And, yes, you are a dunce.

 

[Synthaholic]

Speaking of 'Cockroaches,'...
Seems everybody but you is aware of Jimmy Carter installing the Ayatollah Khomeini, and being the provenance of terrorism today.

Please describe how Carter installed Khomeini, using the actual definition, since you are so fond of them:

Definition of INSTALL

1
a : to place in an office or dignity by seating in a stall or official seat
b : to induct into an office, rank, or order <installed the new president>

2
: to establish in an indicated place, condition, or status <installing herself in front of the fireplace>

3
: to set up for use or service <had an exhaust fan installed in the kitchen> <install software>
— in·stall·er noun

Examples of INSTALL

1. New locks were installed on all the doors.
2. We thought about installing a new phone system.
3. The computer comes with the software already installed.
4. The software installs easily on your hard drive.
5. The college recently installed its first woman president.
6. They were temporarily installed in the guest bedroom.

Nothing identifies the "low information voter" so well as the refusal to connect the dots, if said connection would indict his favorite Democrat.

An example is the clamor over the 'death panels' instituted by the Obama healthcare debate. It was fervently denied all during the debate....
...yet, as usual, the Right was telling the truth, the low information voter denying same.
Then, Stephen Rattner, Obama adviser, admitted it....and ....silence from the Left.


Here one can see the same phenomenon.
Democrat Carter made it possible for the Ayatollah Khomeini to assume control....yet a dunce....you.....refuse to accept same.




"After Carter’s election, Ebrahim Yazdi, one of the Ayatollah Khomeini’s supporters urged him to “begin to think of the ‘new possibilities’ that the expected rift between Tehran and Washington might offer.” Yazdi, an Iranian-born American citizen, wrote to him in Iraq that “the shah’s friends in Washington are out. … It is time to act.” Circumstances dictated that “having picked Khomeini to overthrow the shah, Carter and the French had to get him out of Iraq, clothe him with respectability, and set him up in Paris,” wrote Amir Taheri in “Nest of Spies.”

CIA memoranda regarding Khomeini seem to have either been deliberately ignored by the Carter administration or lost in the great governmental paperwork shuffle. One memo flatly stated, “Khomeini is determined to overthrow the shah and is unlikely to accept compromise. … He has cooperated in the past with Islamic terrorist groups.”

Carter viewed Khomeini as a religious holy man in a grass-roots revolution rather than the founding father of modern terrorism. U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young said, “Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint.” Iran Ambassador William Sullivan, said, “Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure.” Adviser James Bill proclaimed in a Newsweek interview in 1979 that Khomeini was not a mad mujahid, but a man of “impeccable integrity and honesty.”

Lubrani later told me Carter was to blame, to some extent, for the current state of affairs in Iran.


Liberal Democrat Jimmy Carter apparently believes evil really does not exist. Terrorist organizations are simply human rights movements; people are basically good; and America should embrace the perpetrators while castigating the victims.


Jimmy Carter is among the number clamoring to change the worldview of terrorists from mass murderers of the innocent to “insurgents” or “liberation movements.” He is quick to indict the U.S. at every opportunity and to champion the downtrodden suicide bombers as “martyrs.”"
Welcome back Carter?



So, yes....Jimmy Carter installed the Ayatollah

And, yes, he is therefore responsible for the bulk of the terrorism in the world today.

And, yes, you are a dunce.

Your wall of text does not hide your complete failure to show how Carter installed the Ayatollah, using the definition of install.

Now, show in the Constitution where U.S. presidents are empowered to protect the reign of unelected tyrants.

Or, just slink away, defeated. Doesn't matter to me.